Chris, any ramifications from this on your proposed experiments. It seems related. Imaging very tiny situations with quantum effects and all that. (of course I am not in the physics realm and may be way off but I try to stay informed as best I can for a layman).

"Lenses have a limited size, and the light waves from the thing we want to image are chopped off at the edges of the lens. "

Slightly off-topic, but this has made me wonder if there exist anywhere in nature lenses that don't suffer diffraction because of limited size. I can think of at least one possible example: gravitational lensing, in which light is bent by a gravitational field. Because a gravitational field doesn't have an "edge", and continues on attenuating forever, does it still cause diffraction? It might, because I suspect that the issue with diffraction isn't the discontinuity at the edge, but the effective limit on the size of the area in which noticeable lensing takes place.

I LOVED this sentence."The STEHM will not only see individual atoms, but it will indicate what type of atoms they are. It also features an ELECTRON VORTEX BEAM, which researchers can use like tweezers to manipulate individual atoms in a specimen." (my enhancement on EVB) It sure sounds like something from a Saturday morning cartoon villain circa 1968. We are living the future.

Chris, any ramifications from this on your proposed experiments. It seems related. Imaging very tiny situations with quantum effects and all that. (of course I am not in the physics realm and may be way off but I try to stay informed as best I can for a layman).

Not directly no. It does provide some suggestive ideas for an alternative approach. But, I need to see if we have the right equipment and a student I can misuse.

"Lenses have a limited size, and the light waves from the thing we want to image are chopped off at the edges of the lens. "

Slightly off-topic, but this has made me wonder if there exist anywhere in nature lenses that don't suffer diffraction because of limited size. I can think of at least one possible example: gravitational lensing, in which light is bent by a gravitational field. Because a gravitational field doesn't have an "edge", and continues on attenuating forever, does it still cause diffraction? It might, because I suspect that the issue with diffraction isn't the discontinuity at the edge, but the effective limit on the size of the area in which noticeable lensing takes place.

Anyone know the answer to this?

I suspect the aberrations due to the gravitational lens' imperfect form are far more important than their lack of aperture.

"Lenses have a limited size, and the light waves from the thing we want to image are chopped off at the edges of the lens. "

Slightly off-topic, but this has made me wonder if there exist anywhere in nature lenses that don't suffer diffraction because of limited size. I can think of at least one possible example: gravitational lensing, in which light is bent by a gravitational field. Because a gravitational field doesn't have an "edge", and continues on attenuating forever, does it still cause diffraction? It might, because I suspect that the issue with diffraction isn't the discontinuity at the edge, but the effective limit on the size of the area in which noticeable lensing takes place.

Anyone know the answer to this?

I suspect the aberrations due to the gravitational lens' imperfect form are far more important than their lack of aperture.

Good point, thanks. I knew right off after I posted that it wasn't going to be "no diffraction", but it's still interesting to think about these edge-case lenses to challenge assumptions like "has a well-defined aperture".

"Lenses have a limited size, and the light waves from the thing we want to image are chopped off at the edges of the lens. "

Slightly off-topic, but this has made me wonder if there exist anywhere in nature lenses that don't suffer diffraction because of limited size. I can think of at least one possible example: gravitational lensing, in which light is bent by a gravitational field. Because a gravitational field doesn't have an "edge", and continues on attenuating forever, does it still cause diffraction? It might, because I suspect that the issue with diffraction isn't the discontinuity at the edge, but the effective limit on the size of the area in which noticeable lensing takes place.

Anyone know the answer to this?

I suspect the aberrations due to the gravitational lens' imperfect form are far more important than their lack of aperture.

Good point, thanks. I knew right off after I posted that it wasn't going to be "no diffraction", but it's still interesting to think about these edge-case lenses to challenge assumptions like "has a well-defined aperture".

Are the aberrations due to the gravitational effects of other masses? Or are they related to the shape/density distribution of the mass itself?

Is there a theoretical situation in which the aberrations would go away? Like a black hole in deep space? Or "gravitational shielding"?

"Lenses have a limited size, and the light waves from the thing we want to image are chopped off at the edges of the lens. "

Slightly off-topic, but this has made me wonder if there exist anywhere in nature lenses that don't suffer diffraction because of limited size. I can think of at least one possible example: gravitational lensing, in which light is bent by a gravitational field. Because a gravitational field doesn't have an "edge", and continues on attenuating forever, does it still cause diffraction? It might, because I suspect that the issue with diffraction isn't the discontinuity at the edge, but the effective limit on the size of the area in which noticeable lensing takes place.

Anyone know the answer to this?

I suspect the aberrations due to the gravitational lens' imperfect form are far more important than their lack of aperture.

Good point, thanks. I knew right off after I posted that it wasn't going to be "no diffraction", but it's still interesting to think about these edge-case lenses to challenge assumptions like "has a well-defined aperture".

Are the aberrations due to the gravitational effects of other masses? Or are they related to the shape/density distribution of the mass itself?

Is there a theoretical situation in which the aberrations would go away? Like a black hole in deep space? Or "gravitational shielding"?

No, I don't believe so. In empty space, the lens would be spherical, which has its own set of aberrations. In practice it is multiple gravitational sources that create the aberrations though.